From: Björn Skolander
PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
Brussels 28/01/97 15.00
MEPs WITHHOLD EQUAL TREATMENT FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS
Members of the European Parliament have rejected a report which would have
guaranteed an end to discrimination against its own staff members who are
women, members of ethnic minorities - and lesbian or gay.
In a surprise move yesterday (Monday) the Legal Affairs Committee of the
European Parliament rejected a report which, among other things, would have
extended equal treatment to gay and lesbian members of the EU's staff who
have legal partnerships in their own countries.
The EP has in the past been consistently supportive of gay and lesbian
rights. In a major report (The Roth Report) on Gay and Lesbian rights
adopted no more than 18 months ago, the Parliament asked the European
Commission to take steps to end discriminatory treatment against lesbians and
gays, including those on the EU's own staff. Again, in its contribution to
the Inter-governmental Conference (or Maastricht II), the Parliament demanded
that discrimination against lesbians and gays be forbidden by the EU.
This latest development therefore comes as a surprise to those who follow
this issue - not least the 350 members of the EGALITE group of lesbian and
gay members of the EU's own staff, based in Brussels and Luxembourg.
EGALITE's Co-President, Marion Oprel - herself an employee of the European
Parliament - said: "The Parliament has repeatedly urged the ending of
discrimination against lesbians and gays - but when it has a chance to put
its own house in order and set a practical example to other European
employers, it has failed. Its credibility as an employer and as a legislator
on working conditions has been badly damaged by this."
The Report, drafted by Swedish Green MEP Malou Lindholm, recommended measures
to guarantee equal treatment for women, ethnic minorities and lesbian
and gay members of the EU's staff. Swedish and Danish lesbians and gays can
currently register their partnerships in their own country, giving them and
their partners similar rights to married people. The Report proposed that the
EU institutions should follow suit for their employees whenever they were in
such registered partnerships - and, following other employers such as IBM,
the World Bank and the European Monetary Institute, that the same rights be
given to non-married couples - both heterosexual and homosexual - if they
register their partnership with their employer.
Although the Parliament's Committee voted for all of the separate amendments,
it rejected the report in its totality - in a vote taken when several
Socialist MEPs were out of the room - throwing the process into confusion.
Division also surfaced in the EU's executive body, the European Commission,
with its civil servant representative at the meeting arguing against the
Report, whilst his political boss Commissioner Erkki Liikanen is said to have
been consistently supportive of the campaign for gay and lesbian equality.
"Homophobia has once again reared its ugly head and in an institution we had
believed to be free of it," said Marion Oprel EGALITE's Co-President. "But
the victims of this homophobia are not only homosexuals, but also women and
ethnic minorities, who were equally the beneficiaries of this Report. In
throwing out all of Mrs Lindholm's recommendations, these MEPs have ensured
that the EU's staff policy will stay rooted in the mentality of the 1950s.
What does this say about the EU's commitment to equal rights for all Europe's
citizens? If it can't even treat its own employees equally, then what hope
is there for women, ethnic minorities and lesbians and gays - in Europe as a
whole?"
"We call upon the European Parliament as a whole to overturn the decision of
this Committee and to reinstate Mrs Lindholm's recommendations when this
issue is discussed by a plenary session, in line with the Parliament's
previous policy."
Further information: Kieran Burns (Secretary: EGALITE)
tel. Brussels (02) 296 20 93. e-mail: kieran.burns@sdt.cec.be
Background information follows.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE PUTS OFF EQUAL TREATMENT OF THE EU
INSTITUTIONS` FEMALE AND GAY STAFF TILL THE NEXT MILLENIUM?
Over the years the institutions of the European Union have made themselves
champions of equal rights, pressing for non-discrimination and human rights
clauses in the EU Member States` laws and in international agreements.
Paradoxically, this advocacy of explicitly stated non-discrimination outside
has not been parallelled inside the institutions, whose employees have had as
their basic contract of employment a set of Staff Regulations little changed
since the fifties. The Staff Regulations now cover employees from fifteen
countries, not just the original six, and with further expansion of the EU in
the next century this is set to rise.
A move to catch up came in 1993, with a proposal from the European Commission
to incorporate into the Staff Regulations a clause on equal treatment of men
and women. As is usual practice, the European Parliament was also consulted,
produced a report (the Vayssade Report ),and called for amendments to expand
the scope of non-discrimination.
It was not until 1996 that the Commission returned with an amended proposal.
This set out the principle of equal treatment without regard to race,
political, philosophical or religious beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation.
In the intervening years things had changed inside the European institutions:
EGALITE, a group established in mid-1993 to represent gay and lesbian
European civil servants (now with around 350 members), added its weight to
the campaign for changes to the Staff Regulations. In January 1994, the
European Parliament reported on equal rights for gay men and lesbians in the
EU (report by German Green MEP Claudia Roth) and called for an end to
discrimination in policy and legislation. In May 1995, Leo Klein Lebbink, an
employee of the European Parliament, drew up a petition calling for the
rights of employees in stable same-sex relationships to be recognised by the
institutions, particularly as such recognition was already available in
individual Member States. It gathered 700 signatures. In March 1996, the
Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which will determine the shape of the EU
in years to come, got under way. The European Parliament`s contribution to
the debate called for a comprehensive non-discrimination clause in the
successor to the Maastricht Treaty.
The EU institutions lag behind other international organisations like the
World Bank and the European Monetary Institute, whose recognition of
unmarried partners can bring entitlement to benefits. However, in response to
pressure from their employees, the European Parliament and European
Commission introduced partnership-recognition forms giving unmarried partners
access to some facilities (restaurants and canteens and language classes, for
example).
Responsibility for reporting to the European Parliament on the Commission`s
new proposed changes to the EU Staff Regulations fell to the Committee on
Legal Affairs and Citizens` Rights and member Ms Malou Lindholm, a Swedish
Green MEP. The Lindholm Report, with its insistence on genuine equal
opportunities in the European public service and a more accurate reflection
of the changes in society in the Member States made further amendments,
pressing for references to a specific marital status to be removed. and for
an equal opportunities watchdog to be set up It faced its final Committee
vote on Monday 27th January, prior to being debated by the full Parliament.
Nobody who has followed developments over the past five years could have
imagined the outcome of this vote. Although virtually all the Lindholm
Report`s amendments were approved individually, the Report as a whole was
voted down. The European Parliament is noted for acting as a catalyst for
change. This time it has struck a blow to non-discrimination in recruitment,
employment and employer-employee relations on its own doorstep. If this issue
is now shelved for the foreseeable future, the European Union will enter the
next century with employees in its Member States far ahead of its own staff
in terms of conditions of employment. With the European Union occupying a
prominent (and some would say notorious) role in shaping employment
legislation, we can only wonder where it will stand if it sets no example,
particularly to the countries which are next in the queue for membership.